Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37463010›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2023

Wearable and Mobile Technologies for the Evaluation and Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Scoping Review.

Adam C Frank, Ruibei Li, Bradley S Peterson, Shrikanth S Narayanan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adam C FrankDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8203-8480
Ruibei LiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5710-2054
Bradley S PetersonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5737-225X
Shrikanth S NarayananMing Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1052-6204

Funding

Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmartphones and wearable biosensors can continuously and passively measure aspects of behavior and physiology while also collecting data that require user input. These devices can potentially be used to monitor symptom burden; estimate diagnosis and risk for relapse; predict treatment response; and deliver digital interventions in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), a prevalent and disabling psychiatric condition that often follows a chronic and fluctuating course and may uniquely benefit from these technologies.

objectiveGiven the speed at which mobile and wearable technologies are being developed and implemented in clinical settings, a continual reappraisal of this field is needed. In this scoping review, we map the literature on the use of wearable devices and smartphone-based devices or apps in the assessment, monitoring, or treatment of OCD.

methodsIn July 2022 and April 2023, we conducted an initial search and an updated search, respectively, of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science, with no restriction on publication period, using the following search strategy: ("OCD" OR "obsessive" OR "obsessive-compulsive") AND ("smartphone" OR "phone" OR "wearable" OR "sensing" OR "biofeedback" OR "neurofeedback" OR "neuro feedback" OR "digital" OR "phenotyping" OR "mobile" OR "heart rate variability" OR "actigraphy" OR "actimetry" OR "biosignals" OR "biomarker" OR "signals" OR "mobile health").

resultsWe analyzed 2748 articles, reviewed the full text of 77 articles, and extracted data from the 25 articles included in this review. We divided our review into the following three parts: studies without digital or mobile intervention and with passive data collection, studies without digital or mobile intervention and with active or mixed data collection, and studies with a digital or mobile intervention.

conclusionsUse of mobile and wearable technologies for OCD has developed primarily in the past 15 years, with an increasing pace of related publications. Passive measures from actigraphy generally match subjective reports. Ecological momentary assessment is well tolerated for the naturalistic assessment of symptoms, may capture novel OCD symptoms, and may also document lower symptom burden than retrospective recall. Digital or mobile treatments are diverse; however, they generally provide some improvement in OCD symptom burden. Finally, ongoing work is needed for a safe and trusted uptake of technology by patients and providers.

Indexed as

biomarkerdigitalmobile phoneobsessive-compulsive disorderOCDphenotypesmartphonewearable

Identifiers

PMID37463010
PMCPMC10394606

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.